"Writing these things is so awkward"; "just looking for a nice girl"; "want to share a laugh"; "someone smart, who can carry on a conversation"...When you first enter the online dating world you feel like you hit the jackpot. Here, gathered in one digital utopia are men who are looking for exactly what you are. They are not trying to get an easy lay, they are tired of the bar scene-- they have invested their hard earned wages in finding a match-- a girl like you. But when your match is only a click away...are you really any closer?
At first I was humiliated. Has it really come to this? After years of feeling like there were so many adorable, available men and if only I didnt have a boyfriend I could have my pick of them...has it really come to digital dating? No. I mean, the people who date online are creeps. They are losers who can't meet someone in the real world and revert to their dotcom fantasy world for fulfillment. It was a good friend raving about her boyfriend that changed my mind. He was smart, fun and sweet-- and she found him online. Try it--- she assured me: you get free dinners and drinks, you meet interesting people in a new city and if you don't like someone you can never click on them again.
It got me thinking, but I still was not convinced, so I went out. It took one night at a hot Manhattan bar to get me off the streets and online. After being asked why I went to college with tits like mine and being told that "once I go black I'll never go back" I decided to go back to my apartment and sign up to date online.
Being online is like shopping online. It is not real until you actually see the product at your door. At first it seems like a dream. You can scan profiles before deciding to 'chat' you can filter the losers and flirt with the cuties. You get "hotlisted" and adored. Emails await you in the morning to tell you how many men are "interested" in you. In seconds the world of dating becomes manageable--and fun. But then come the dates and you realize-- just like the hot men in bars can turn out to be assholes, the sweet guys online can disappoint as well.
Yet, while I have had my fair share of "interesting" dates, the biggest disappointment has been that none of them have been worth a second chance. Given infinite options and infinite opportunities-- given an environment where everyone is gathered for the sole purpose of meeting someone-- I still cannot seem to find the right guy. The digital dating world is not as different from the real world as I had hoped. Yes, I can delete the douchebags, but they can also delete me. Digital rejection stings like the real thing. And as I continue to meet men that disappoint, I start to wonder if this is as good as it gets. Maybe the myth of suitable men is nothing more than a cruel joke on women in our 20s. It should be obvious-- the online dating world thrives on the harshness of reality. So embrace your digital ice cream, ladies, because Ben and Jerry are the only sure thing.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Dating.com
Monday, September 1, 2008
Babes in Boyland
"From the minute you walked in the joint, I could tell that you were a girl of distinction a real big spender..." The bow ties, cuff links and black speedos can only mean one thing: The Chippendales.
Oh yes, ladies for the bargain price of thirty dollars at the half price ticket booth in Vegas and a short shuttle ride off the strip you can spend an hour living a fantasy-- or many. A team of men with chiseled chests and flimsy tank tops will lip sync their way into your hearts (and minds) dressed as everything from cowboys to naval officers. All the while the bachelorette parties, birthday groups and the rest of us kinky chicks who don't need an excuse scream obscenities and enjoy the show.
There are a lot of male strip shows in Vegas, and after one night of the Chippendales, I was ready to try them all. Yet, the next night as my friend and I settled into our seats for American Storm, apparently they were on VH1 and now they are taking it off in the Stratosphere Hotel. We heard the same expectant screams and saw the same chiseled chests but the show fell flat. Sure, the guys were hot, but they missed the boat on stripping for the ladies-- we want you to take it off AND turn us on.
The Chippendales made me smile from the second I walked into the room. They approached their show with the sense of humor we all needed to justify being there in the first place. They played songs we all knew and loved, danced with us young ladies and gave the older ladies roses. The Chippendales are not strippers--they seducers. Their show is more than hot men dancing on a stage, but a complete seduction. I can rather confidently assert that every woman left that show with an amazing experience that we all wanted to remember (easily achieved with the many souvenirs in the gift shop you exit into after the show).
I am in my early twenties and meet my share of good-looking men. Chippendale quality bodies, but American Storm personalities. They come in strong with a "hey baby" and a confident smile that says they are eager to take it off, but have no idea how to turn me on. They have great lines about my eyes and my smile-- some less polished muscle men go straight for a 'nice tits' or 'you make me so hot'--but they don't get that I'm really smiling at the guy behind them rolling his eyes and looking at me as if to say 'need help?'
Watching hot men dance isn't worth the free drinks they offer if they aren't going to do it with a little personality. I think it is so easy for us ladies to make relatively attractive men dance, sing and anything else if they think it will get them laid. So what makes the Chippendales worth paying for is getting to enjoy the sexy without worrying about the sex. All the Chippendales expect in return for treating us like hot goddesses for an hour is that we tell our friends how amazing it is and our ticket fee. I'm glad to give them both. Go see the Chippendales and next time a guy expects you to take it off, tell him to turn you on.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
If You Want To Be My Lover
...You gotta get with my friends? Remember this line? Well, who knows what the Spice Girls were talking about-- but it raises an interesting question about how we see our lovers, friends and more interestingly our friends' lovers. I cannot count the amount of times I have listened to my friends complain about their significant other in a way that makes me want to scream 'why would you ever put up with this loser?' I see red flags where they see 'challenges' or worse 'bad habits.' Friends of mine have dated men with bad habits that range from making out with other girls to spending their meager salaries on weed. I wonder how all my friends developed the 'bad habit' of denial.
I often talk to my friends in relationships about the challenges of meeting a good man. They try to comfort me but it is hard for them to see past the great man in their life. The honest truth is, when I talk to my single friends we almost universally agree that we would never date any of our friends boyfriends. It is strange to think about people I am so compatible with dating people I cannot imagine being in a room with alone for more than thirty seconds without screaming. It is not always so drastic, but in almost every case I see things that I would never put up with and people that I would never want to sleep with. It is not as if all the great guys out there are taken, it is that all the girls who have taken guys think they are great.
I'm not talking here about disliking a 'jerk'. We all know the most important rule of friendship is never mention that you don't like the boyfriend. I broke this rule once six years ago and our friendship never fully recovered. I am talking about a guy who is a nice guy, but someone I would never dream of dating. I am talking about how I may envy the security of my friends' relationships but never the other person in the relationship. It perplexes me to see my friends with the men they choose.
So ladies with boyfriends relax. While you think he is a great catch, based on my conversations with countless single ladies, your friends do not. He may be a nice guy, a good guy for you, treat you well, etc. but we don't want him. Maybe that is why we are still single...
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Father's Day
Father's Day is a welcome reminder to celebrate the important men in your life. Whether that man is your father or someone who has inspired, guided and motivated you-- Father's Day serves to show the important role men serve in who we are and will become. Yet, it is also important to explore, for young 20 something women, what it means now to be a father. In the New York Times an article called When Mom and Dad Share it All discusses the importance of men and women playing equal roles instead of conceptualizing them. The article argues that while in many surveys and conversations both men and women will say they believe family obligations should be gender neutral, the truth is that women are still contributing disproportionately to traditional 'female' household roles. The article seems to show that while women still face difficult challenges in family life, the challenge of being a father now, is less loving and caring for your children, but balancing the stigma that often comes with it.
In a wonderful book called I Don't Know How She Does It by Allison Pearson, the character, Kate Reddy finds herself in a board room late for work and covered in saliva. She is late because her six-month old baby was sick, but knows that she cannot tell her colleagues at the risk of seeming unable to perform her duties as both mother and investment banker. As she sits in the board room she hears a male colleague tell their boss that he was leaving early that day because his son had a Little League game. The response was a a doting smile and murmurs about what a great Dad he was for seeing his son. As Kate and the reader fume, it is important to take a step back and wonder men still have the luxury.
The article would imply they do not. The underlying issue of male and female equality is less that men don't want it and more that they cannot face it. Women justifiably complain of the issues faced by Kate Reddy: being the best mother and the best employee--oh and make it look easy. Yet, men have complaints in this department too. When their wives are smart, successful, women in the working world they have to find a way of balancing the supportive husband while living up to the male dominance of the world they were raised in. It is hard for men to look at their father's generation who were expected to be the bread-winners and find themselves falling short of that role and falling into the traditional homemaker. While women feel the need to achieve at unprecedented levels and be the best of all worlds, men today have to figure out what their new world should look like. They need to find a balance between the men they were raised to be and the men they will have to be.
I know many intelligent, successful men who want desperately to be wonderful fathers. Not just fathers-- they want to be wonderful fathers. While many of the smart successful women I know question the value of children in their life and their ability to face the challenges children present, most of the men I talk to feel up to the task. Though when pushed about their willingness to stay home, to sacrifice their success, their social lives, etc. they insist it is what they want, but with less of a glow. I do not think these men are superficial, thinking that a baby sounds fun and not weighing the work involved, but rather, they have yet to be exposed to the world that women are groomed for: balancing babies and business. They were not raised to think about the challenges of families and housework because their father's, for the most part, were not playing that role.
In this sense, men who will become our children's fathers have a lot to learn from the women of our generation. The article in the New York Times laments the fact that the women of our generation still face the balancing act that our mother's did, but I feel that it is this balancing act that allows us to teach our husbands and children the challenges of family. These men are willing, in theory, to make the sacrifices necessary to be the wonderful father's they want to be. It is now up to the women to work with them to make it a reality. I have been in many jobs where my boss is overworked because she will not teach me to do something she 'can just do herself' leaving her overloaded and me free to explore other things. In many senses, this is what happens in families. I know how to balance my life, I was raised to do it, therefore teaching my significant other--fighting about it with him-- is just not worth it. Yet, we are at the point where the attitudes of men not only allow us to change household dynamics but demand we do. For to be the wonderful fathers they want to be, they will have to learn from both parents how its done.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Redefining 'Strong Woman'
Since I can remember I have been hearing what it means to be a strong woman. Whether it be relatives or role models I have heard so many women described for their incredible strength. In every situation I remember this strength was emotional. Women who stood up for what was right, who fought through difficult times and who challenged unjust norms were all strong women. When I am called a strong woman, it is because of my personality. Stubbornness, forceful arguments and reactions to trying situations make me strong. Yet, I cannot help but think it is time to look to really strong women by the weight she lifts instead of the burdens she faces.
Healthy living has been a fixation of women for centuries. Mothers have passed down secrets of how to cure the common cold, a stomach bug or what to do for that awful zit before prom. Women, perhaps because of maternal instinct and in modern times due to vanity have always been consumed with the best way to foster healthy and happy lifestyles for themselves and their children. It is worth acknowledging that the forces that once brought vegetables to young children are now appeasing them with candy bars. Obesity has reached such high levels in the Western world that the health concerns linked to smoking are nearly dwarfed by those of being overweight. Mothers and fathers now are more concerned with their child's happiness than their well-being.
This time I want to celebrate women who are strong. I noticed it last week in class I take at my gym called Bodytone. Unlike the regular aerobics or tummy classes the gym offers this class is devoted to weight-lifting. While few women will brave the weight room at the gym, the overstuffed class on Monday nights is full of women who want to get stronger. In all shapes and sizes women flock to this class because it teaches us to build muscle, and the type of strength women need to start to celebrate as much if not more than the emotional strength we have celebrated for so long.
Being strong and healthy is one of the more difficult things the achieve. With life demanding so much of our emotional strength it is hard to find time for the physical. Yet, the physical is so important to fostering the development of the next generation. As women become more independent we also have to learn to be strong. To face moving boxes or walking stairs the way we face our fears and burdens will allow for the next generation of women to value their physical strength for more than vanity, but necessity.
So even though it is summer and it makes us all want to shape-up for bikinis and short shorts, try to look at the importance of being strong for more than just the way you look, but who you are. View exercise and health as more than a means to the perfectly flat tummy but the years of life that you want to have in the end and the ability to be prepared for the challenges that face you. Get lifting, get stronger--it does a mind good to have a strong body.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Turning On 'Getting Off'
My vibrator is out of batteries. This realization hit me last night after a particularly raunchy television show (to each their own). I found myself desperately searching my room for another battery operated device to be sacrificed but found myself cursing the overwhelming presence of rechargeable items in my apartment. The loss of my vibrator was a moment of true weakness. After months of lacking a sexual partner I have become dependent on sexual pleasure. Without my vibrator I felt a serious low-- one that made me realize how important that orgasm really is to my sanity and frankly, how I get turned on knowing I'll be getting off.
I mentioned my tragic loss at happy hour the next day to my lovely lady friends who range from religiously celibate to practically engaged to, well, those who view sex as something to be served with breakfast, lunch and dinner-- no matter who the waiter is. With one exception, everyone felt my pain. Despite having men frequently, having intimate relationships or even a moral repugnance to premarital sex every single one of the ladies used a vibrator. It struck me, having clinged to my vibrator only to overcome my recent lack of sex, that even girls who were having frequent sex with men felt at a complete loss without their own mechanism for as my friend called it "the orgasm you couldn't fake if you wanted to."
Yet, for some reason the vibrator has been seen as a tool for the lonely --as something women who cannot have a man have to use to meet our single sexual needs. The problem is that when women who are involved in sexual relationships are still using it, there needs to be a new discussion about how getting off has become more of an issue than getting some. Women, for the most part, have accepted that they will not get off every time they have sex. Women have to view sex as less a gamble and even more often a challenge. Men's egos have to be stroked more often than their dicks-- so when a woman finds herself in the throws of a sex that isn't going to get her there, she has to weigh the fake against the inevitable insecurity and often frustration that follows. Yet, the vibrator shows that women do care about getting off and have found the vibrator the relationship-saving compromise as opposed to the single woman's weapon of choice.
For some reason there is still a stigma that follows discussion of vibrators, dildos and sex toys to get women off. The problem is that men are not always so great at it. If women could view sex as men do-- varying in intensity of the result instead of the absence of it-- I would not see it as the problem it is. Women statistically will not get orgasms from pure vaginal stimulation, they will not get off from sex and they will not tell men when they are just doing something wrong. This combination of factors means that making discussions and usage of vibrators okay is an important step in making sex better. Practice makes perfect, ladies. You can't expect men to teach you what you like and how you like it. You have to know. They best way to get to know yourself is to embrace your own sexuality, masturbation and good vibrations.
So after a quick run to the convenience store across the block I am getting back on my getting off. You all should get on it too, because nothing is as big as a turn on as knowing that at the end of the road, instead of the big fake you will get the big O.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
How Casual Are You Really?
I'm a secret Modern Love addict. I read the NYTimes columns on a regular basis, but especially during times of love-life insecurities, I seek out these first-person narratives on dating, love, and sex. Reading other people's strange takes on love in modernity makes me feel less strange. Key word searching for my dilemma of the moment brings me internet solidarity; key word searching for worst case scenarios brings me a sense of relief. Finding modern love is difficult, joining forces with an army of similarly minded young singles helps me to (ahem) celebrate singleness and ruminate on togetherness, and otherwise just accept whatever the hell this is that's called "dating."
I especially liked the winner of the College Essay contest, Marguerite Fields. (Quick pause so you can click here and read her well-written, poignant, thoughtful essay.)
Marguerite's story sounded a lot like many of my own. She's talking about "dating" (if you want to call it that) in a culture deeply ambivalent about commitment. She doesn't want to place "expectations" upon anyone else, but she's a little lost about how to navigate an expectation-less social tapestry. Because the way we conceptualize courtship and dating is based primarily on unspoken expectations, once these thought constructs are gone, knowing where to go next is pretty tricky. Whether these thought constructs can ever really disappear is up for debate.
I don't mean to defend the traditional, patriarchal mode of dating. I don't advocate playing by the rules, nor do I think a woman should let a man pay, hold the door, igrovel to be next to her etc... My point is that while we're debating whether or not a man should pay, just getting men to deem it necessary to do more than simply send a text message is almost impossible. I think too often, people romantically involved treat each other worse than they would treat their friends, and that's the main problem. For some reason, once entered into the realm of "relationship" no matter how casual, the odds of things becoming socially strange (in the situations Marguerite and I have dated in) go up fast.
I don't have a take away or lesson, except for this. I think it's really important to know whether you can handle a deeply ambivalent relationship. If carefree and casual is for you, that's great, but don't saddle your friends with unremitting complaints about a non-committal partner, if he's never led you to think he was anything but that. Greg's original message "He's just not that into you." is wrong in placing all the relationship agency in the hands of men, but he's not wrong in helping women identify men unlikely to submit to even the simplest demands of friendship. IF he's not a good friend, he's not a good lover. Leave him (or take the best parts of him and try to practice zen-like non-attachment. I'm not sure which is better.)
Monday, May 12, 2008
I want a beer and to see something naked...
Jeff Foxworthy attempts to answer the always humorous question about what men are thinking. His response? "I want a beer and I want to see something naked." Jerry Seinfeld also attempts a response with "Nothing. We aren't thinking about anything. Our mind is a total blank." Chris Rock's famous line "Feed Me. F$%^ Me. Shut the F(*# up." has had people laughing for years. The odd thing is, women are not really guessing what men are thinking because we want to know, but because we want to show them that we think that way too. Somehow in the past decade, being a 'cool' girl became defined as thinking like a man...
You know this girl--you are sitting in a bar in a group of guys and girls and she asks you to move so she can watch Sports Center. The response is predictable: every guy at the table admiringly stares at her with an impressed glance as she focuses hard on the television screen. When you are sitting around the table laughing about how size does matter or how it is sad that hot television personalities are suddenly too young for you, she chimes in about how it is not the size but the skill, and by the way-- who are these TV stars? She only watches sports. It is hard for me to help rolling my eyes at this girl, but sometimes I feel myself becoming a version of her. For some reason admitting my love for Gossip Girl or my intimate relationship with Ben & Jerry is something I feel like I need to hide, while men often gloat about their video games, sports addictions and love of hot young female stars.
Of course there are women who like sports and sterotypically male associated activities. I happen to be an obsessive sports fan of one of my college teams. Yet, my problem is the way that embracing hobbies and interest that are associated with men is something girls use to get positive attention, while embracing female sterotypes is considered embrassing. Admitting that I like mixed drinks and think beer tastes like piss, might make that guy think that I am a prissy girl. If I concede I have never seen or cared to see Sports Center and would much rather watch Sex and the City while eating chocolate, I become somehow undesirable. While men who embrace their beer drinking, sports-obsessive personalities in public, women cater to them--yet my wine sipping, diet plan and shopping habit are compeltely off-limits.
There are men who can play this game too. Kudos to you, gentlemen. The ones who admit they cry when they get overwhelmed and thought 27 Dresses was a cute film. The men who will order a Sex on the Beach with a smile that says, so I like fruity drinks--you dont? Yet, for men who are trying to get laid, expressing a love of things that will make their date want to sleep with them is just a part of the game. If women only took it to this level, I would be keen to watch the show. The problem is that girls take it to competitive and pervasive level where it is used to undercut their female friends and reinforce the image that being girly, well, sucks. I know a girl who is an expert at this, always boasting about her love of beer and football while downing pizza and chips in front of the guys, while running off to the gym seconds later and living on salads for the rest of the week.
I love my girliness and I think men do too, because, well, it is me. I hate nature and hiking, but don't mind working my ass off in a gym. I am not really into shopping but love to find a bargain and could talk for hours about how much money I saved on a shopping spree. I eat ice cream like it is the secret to life and dance around my room (in headphones) when no one is watching. I cry in movies and would rather watch Hardball with Chris Matthews than baseball with anyone. I drink mixed drinks--rum and diets are my preferred poison and I think that the boys on Gossip Girl are so cute that I am inclined to send fan mail (though not hang up their posters, I am in my twenties...). I think the way women who embrace football while shunning shopping to look like more of a man, undermine how great it is to be a woman. It is not about what you like or do not like, but rather expressing who you really are. If you love football, great! But the chance of it being the most important thing in your life only when you are surrounded by male friends or colleagues and never in our one on one conversations is a little hard to believe.
So what are men thinking? I am sure that the answer varies--but I bet they are not all thinking, "man, I want a woman who is just like me, agrees with everything I say and likes what I like-- wouldn't that be awesome." So get him a beer, but you can order you like...I still think he'll want to get you naked.
JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU LESSON: Girls who flirt by feigning extreme loves of sports, beer and farting jokes are done. Crude senses of humor and interests transcend gender lines, ladies. Which means, the way you talk to guys should reflect the same interests and jokes that you use with your girls. No one is into people pretending to be a man to get a man, so embrace who you are. There are lots of things that turn men off quickly, but what you drink or watch on TV is rarely among the deal breakers. So be yourself--or if not that--at least dont become him.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
None of Your Business
In keeping with the Salt-n-Pepa theme, I would like to both welcome and applaud Hera for expanding this dialog on sexuality to actually include sex. On that note, let's examine another prescient message from our pop princesses: It's none of your business.
In 1993, Salt n Pepa penned the pop epic, "None of Your Business." For those of you not familiar with the lyrics, the chorus goes a little something like this:
"If I want to take a guy home with me tonight, it's none of your business."
They let us know, in no uncertain term, that judging other people for real or imagined sexual transgressions is uncalled for. Asking their listeners to please keep their opinions to themselves, Salt-n-Pepa emancipate themselves from the judgments of their peers, calling into question the underlying motivations of these (real or imagined) critics. Was it jealousy? Simple double standards? Hypocrisy? Either way, the moral of their story was that only one judge existed, and that was God (so they could bone as many people as they wanted, thank you, and let their holy father judge them if he wanted).
Whether or not the final endorsement of a higher power was necessary, I think Salt-n-Pepa give us some real ground to cover here. First, although it pains me to admit this, I think their message is almost certainly addressed to other women. In my experience, we are our own worst enemies when it comes to being the enforcers of social and sexual propriety. Too many women have become the objects of gossip for (real or imagined) sexual acts by the women in their lives, sometimes by their own friends. Granted, it's the patriarchal lens through which we view and understand sexuality that makes these distinctions possible. Men, as the rightful owners of sexuality go out and have as many partners as they want (or as many as possible) meanwhile sweet, docile women guard their chastity and wait for filial love to endorse their sexuality. However, by perpetuating sexual double standards and unnecessary sexual gossip, women only feed into the patriarchy.
Today's reality makes it clear that women are doing as much of the hunting and wild-oat sowing as men (sorry for the mixed metaphor). However, the fact that social mores have changed for the large part, has not fully changed our dialog. We're still using words like "whore," or "tramp" and passing subtle judgment on the "types" of women who would do those sorts of things. I mean what kind of a girl takes a boy home with her! My goodness! She's loose!
I don't know why we somehow get transported back to 1955 when we talk about sexual relationships, but trust me, this dialog of judgment and enforced innocence isn't helpful. While seeking to preserve a public image of the "good girl" we sell out the "bad girls" to the norms of patriarchy ultimately placing all women in bondage. The harm that we do each other in using language that denigrates rather than celebrates sexuality is far greater than the harm that could possibly come from any consensual sexual act between adults. Ladies, let's stop with the language of purity, blame, guilt, or fear and embrace our sexuality. Take a cue from Salt-n-Pepa and do what you want, cuz it's none of their business anyway.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Let's Talk About Sex Ladies
I have had the pleasure of following this awesome blog from afar for too long. It is now time for me to pony-up and let the world know that I am sick of the analytical, sobby dicussions of what a let down men are. Of course they are a let down. I mean let's be realistic: we are born and bred for complexity and they are, well, not. Yet, I think that this discussion about relationships has been missing a crucial aspect: sex. I find myself recently single and have been suffering through not one, not two, but three sexless months. Good vibrations, aluded to last week by the goddess of love and beauty, has not been enough for this lustful lady. I am experiencing something strange that men just do not understand: I'm a woman who really really just wants to get laid.
My requirements are few: no oldies, no creepies and no STDs. Most breathing, capable men will do the trick. Now, here is where we, as ladies, really need to talk about SEX. Men I have vented to about my frustrations seem to think that it is a little odd, in fact, wrong that a woman should be lacking a sexual partner. In their strange concept of the world, women should be able to walk outside their door and approach the first man who walks by with a simple, "Excuse me, do you have a second for a quickie?" only to find his eager response at the other end. Sorry guys. As much as this little fantasy might play well in your minds, reality check: does not work. Oh, it works on TV and in movies (especially of the adult variety) but not in real life. In real life, men I really just want to bang, want to talk. They think girls who go for one night stands are whores. They are wary of women who even mention sex, much less make it a responsbility. In all male efforts with cheap lines and lame tricks to get a girl, really if they just kept their mouth shut and let us do the talking they would find themselves getting lucky instead of getting the brush off.
So the issue really isnt men here. They are, well, thick. They are thick about women when it comes to sex. WE need to change the way WE talk about it. I mean come ON, why do we act like girls who want it are whores? Why do we giggle uncomfortably when women talk about wanting to get laid? banged? We act like women who want sex, will end up getting screwed. Like we really are the emotional train-wrecks men picture us as. We will inevitably have sex with them and turn into some lost puppy who follows them for weeks before it gets the message. We portray this image as much as they embrace it. We aren't candid with each other about sex, we aren't willing to discuss it as freely as we are relationships and feelings. Look at this blog. We are looking at the pain of a breakup, the condusions of single life and somehow we are missing the sex.
So let's talk about sex ladies, let's talk about you and me and let's talk about why in a world full of hormone driven men comprising just under fifty percent of the population we cant get a second for a quickie.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Tickling Your Fancy
I recently went to a masturbation workshop, and my take away message was "man, I wish I had a boyfriend." I think the evening of self-empowered sexuality was meant to make me think the exact opposite.
The workshop leader was an awesome feminist who runs a female-oriented sex shop, Early to Bed, in Chicago. Using a giant, felt and velvet puppet vagina, she talked about female masturbation for almost an hour to a very receptive audience. I especially enjoyed her tales of masturbating throughout her youth. Funny.
Maybe it's graduate school or just one of those life periods, but I suddenly feel like most of my friends are single (and looking) and coming up empty handed (no pun intended) when it comes to men. Part of it, I know is the culture of school. No one has time or money for dating and hooking up is the new dinner and a movie. Part of it, I think, is Athena's before-mentioned alpha female complex. For women with everything: the job, the money, good grades, great friends, we're frustrated waiting around for men to call. It would be so much easier if our dating life were like our professional or personal lives. There, if you have an objective, work hard, and you'll achieve it. Dating, however, depends so much more on luck, subjectivity, the good graces of well-meaning but clueless males, it's difficult.
Take away: Vibrators are great, and because of the nature of this blog I feel it's my duty to tell women everywhere there's no need to wait for a man to make you happy, sexually or otherwise. However, if you're wishing for a spring fling instead, I totally identify with that.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
What Men Won't Tell You
I was recently sent an article about eleven secrets men keep from women. The article attempted to shed light on the fact that men golf to get away from their wives and think that women with curves are sexier than the stick figures in magazines. The article explained that men like to fix things around the house even if they complain about it and value a woman who can give them freedom to be an individual. Reading it I was not surprised by any of the information it provided-- as a woman I share a lot of these sentiments when looking at successes in a long term relationship. I want my own space, I like men who eat ice cream without running a mile the next day and I may not golf, but "girl's nights" and manipedi parties give me much needed escape. What the article did was make me think about the things men really don't tell us, and shuttered when the reality hit me that it is the things that matter most.
From the 1990s single woman in Ally McBeal to Carrie Bradshaw and even the newly single Blair Waldorf, stories of women devastated by breakups and live their aimless single life dominate the airwaves. Each show reveals a break-up that shatters an otherwise intelligent, powerful woman. In each situation there were push and pulls in the relationship that resulted in an eventual end, but the end always manifests the real things men don't tell us: how they stopped loving us. In each strong, single woman's journey they maintain a connection to the men that destroyed something inside of them, not out of desperation (or even patheticness as the shows sometimes depict it as) but out of a lack of closure. For some reason women are always caught of gaurd by the how and why and thus search for it in ways that lead us nowhere but deeper into the depths of what-ifs.
It is not just television. Friends of mine who have successful relationships worriedly call after their mind wanders to a past love who slipped away. I consistently find myself in tears during romantic films and audible books not out of dispair but apprehension. Like Ally, Carrie and Blair I too am an alpha-female. I am constantly surrounded with everything a person needs to be happy-- friends, success, a gym, a loving family and whiskey. And while I am not haunted by the end of my past relationships (the most recent being the most painful) I am haunted by the fact not a single man has ever really told me why. None of them have let me know something was wrong until it was too late-- over in their minds, while it was thriving in mine. I was of course attuned to problems as all relationships have their problems, but being caught off-gaurd begs the question why won't men tell you the truth: it is not, and never REALLY was going to be you.
In a famous episode of Sex in the City, Carrie, relieved to finally make amends with her ex wakes up the next morning to a post-it. Ally McBeal finds out five years after her break-up that he had already met the woman he would marry when he decided it was time to end it with her. Blaire Waldorf stood in front of her man, who had cheated in the past, and heard him tell her nothing could keep them apart only to abandon her immediately upon discovering her own indiscretions. The men all explain they didn't want to hurt the woman. They didn't want her to know it was entirely her fault. They didn't want her to know that she just was not the one for them. Instead they just thought she should know it was over. Relationships don't end, they dissolve-- yet for these women and myself, the dissolution culminates in a man trying to protect himself (or his soon-to-be ex) with what he will not tell us.
I do not know if it is better to hear from someone you love that on some level they knew that you were not for them. I do not know if it is better to hear that you are not the person they wanted you to be and someone else seemingly is that person. What I do know is not knowing makes the next relationship nothing more than a trap. For your damned if you assume that it will end and damned if you don't. What men do not tell us is when they don't think they love us anymore. They don't tell us that they are unsure about this relationship because there might just be someone better. They don't tell us that after weeks, months, years, decades of loving us, it has started to fade. They just tell us when it is gone.
So perhaps men do stare at other women's chests, perhaps they do like to hold the remote, perhaps they like when women take control in the bedroom, but these secrets of men are not what men won't tell us. I don't know how to discover the real secrets.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Dreading Debt
While few women living large in 2008 would trade our freedoms and successes for the relative simplicitiy of dating in the 1950s, there is a bit of nostalgia for a time when a great date was followed by the dreaded bill. In the early stages of dating there is an awkward power struggle between both people involved over who will pay. Decades ago when women rarely worked and if they did their salaries were certainly less than most men, the man footing the bill was not merely a matter of courtesy but a necessity. Now, women may still make less than men on average, but as women become more educated and thus more competitive for successful careers the man paying becomes less of a necessary gesture and more of an awkward standoff. The reason for the awkward feeling that accompanies a man buying dinner haunts many women is that at this point in our lives we are quite aware that you don't get something for nothing-- and if he is paying for my dinner, what is he expecting me to give him in return?
Of course not all men feel that paying for dinner makes their date indebted to them. As many of them have told me they were just "raised that way." Many of you out there are reading this and wondering how a woman who can play by the "rules" and resents stupid pick-up lines can then feel uncomfortable when a nice guy wants to pay for my dinner (no wonder she is still single, you say!). The truth is that in every respect of my life I expect to be treated as an equal. While I appreciate kindness and generosity-- including efforts to hold doors and give up seats on public transit--I cannot help but feel that in someone I am considering romantically, I want to be treated as an eqaul partner. Furthermore, there is no reason for me not to be treated as such.
I have heard of women living in expensive cities like New York, Washington DC, LA and Boston using online dating services as a way to get a free dinner. I have heard women talk candidly about how men should pay for the date because, well, "it is the right thing to do." Many men agree with this sentiment. They fully expect to pay for the date and when a woman inisits on paying it is percieved as immasculating rather than courteous.
Yet, the problem for me rests in the other-side of the payment. I have had many men in bars send drinks over to my table which almost always guilts me into walking over to thank them. I feel trapped in a conversation I would never be having had they not bought me something. Other guys take this further...after buying a few rounds of drinks they will be very forward with the fact that they expect a phone number at best or a bed for the night (in their dreams). The problem is the fact that they have been paying for me takes me down a notch. While normally a toxic glance or dismissive gesture would be effective in turning down the most persistent of men (I really am that good at being that mean) when I feel indebted to him, I just cannot muster the same (and sometimes necessary) rejection. For meals and dates the pattern is no different. Once a man has bought me something, I would feel like I needed to take him out again, or pay him back-- because that is how I was raised.
So for those of you ladies that can watch a man foot the bill without blinking-- I envy you and hate you. You are the reason that most men feel that they have to pay, thus putting me in a place where watching the waiter place the bill carefully in the center of the table and my advance to contribute looks aggressive. Where my desire to remain on eqaul footing and my overwhelming sense of guilt is at odds with your notion that a free meal is a romantic must. I feel sorry for men-- you cannot win. You offer to split with a girl who thinks you should pay or you offer to pay to a girl who thinks you should split and you look like a jerk. Yet, ladies, these men who are so willing to pay are well aware that there are many of us out there who will feel like we owe them something-- and they are not afraid to try and collect. I hope the meal is worth it :)
JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU LESSON: I think that there are a few ways to avoid this awkward scenerio. If you are one of the luckier ladies who is unphased by men paying for your dinner, procede as you would :) For those of you who feel ever so slightly uncomfortable with the concept I advise paying for drinks before or after or insisting on getting the next meal (unless you really never want to see the guy again, in which case, you were compensated for your time). Either way, it should never be expected that the guy pays for you, so get ready to reach for your wallets, even if it is just a reach...
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
On Being Mean to Strangers
I regret it now. I mean, I didn't really mean it at the time, but I still regret it now. Well, okay, I totally meant it at the time, I might even do it again if given the chance, but at least I have the capacity to understand why intimidating strange men to the point of tears is just simply not nice.
I have problems putting up with male bullshit. Come on, male readers, please write in and explain the seriously lame lines you use in public situations! I think what frustrates me, honestly, is the entirety of the constructed bullshit. (Sorry for the academese I'm transitioning from writing a paper.) I hate being in the social setting, being eyed like prey, and then pounced upon, usually by men who seem to be largely unable to come up with better lines than "You're pretty hot." or "I'm giving out free mammograms...." The worst line ever? How about "See that girl over there? I used to think she was the hottest girl in here, but after watching you sing Madonna, I'm pretty sure it's you." (That's paraphrased, but it was still pretty silly, especially considering the man in question could definitely have been a member of AARP.)
Like Athena's recent post, the problem lies not in the lack of nice guys, but in the way nice guys express themselves socially. Less likely to "buy the pretty lady a drink" and more likely to sit quietly, not wanting to offend. At least I assume so. What's the solution? Should we use our own conversation starters on the cute guys we see in these so-called constructed settings? I bet I could come up with something A LOT better than what I usually get. And, come to think of it, prior to my enforced social prison sentence (read: graduate school) I think I used to introduce myself to seemingly nice men all the time. Although, to be honest, I have romanticized my blissfully free year off to the point of not remembering the details all that well...
We're just not that into you lesson: Girls, we can do it better; make conversation with nice guys, that is. Stop letting that douchebag in the bar steal your time away just because he's brave enough to approach you first. Get out there and practice your own cheesy lines on seemingly nice strangers. And, if approached by douchbags, do not make them cry! That is just mean, although that might just be my own problem...
Sunday, April 13, 2008
I wanna dance with somebody
Girls we have all been there. You meet a great, accomplished guy in a bar. He is smart and witty, sipping a beer while his friends take body shots off three underage chicks at the bar. Then one of those songs come on-- you know the ones-- Journey "Don't Stop Believin", Britney with "Baby One More Time" and even this article title ballad, which perfectly states the situation: the song rocks and you want to dance with somebody. Yet, invariably the beer sipping, intelligent boy will respond unforigivingly: "I'm sorry, I don't dance." As remaining in one's seat during any of these songs is not only taboo, but impossible for the dancing inclined, you resort to one of his body-shot buddies who is more than happy to rock it out to "Baby Got Back."
The issue is not just the dancing it is the socialization of high achieving women compared to that of their male counterparts. In recent years men have maintained higher grades and SAT scores than women while failing to match involvement in academic extra-curricular activities. The statement is clear: if you are on mock trial, Model UN, debate, etc. as a guy in high school you are, well a loser. The guys who play sports (or play women) are getting to rock the party scene while those who choose the more academic ventures are left to learn about women from porn and about social life from a few friends and an X-box. The problem with this is these guys grow up to be the men that we want-- the smart, hard-working, queit guys with jobs and ambition. But, well, they can't dance.
They can't party either. Or they party like its 1999-- as in when we fun-loving ladies were hitting up the high school scene (because we were IN high school, not because we are looking for a good time). The girls in my high school who were hard-working could party just as hard. The gifted classes were comprised of girls who dated the football players and won national merit scholarships. For girls the ability to be a party-loving dance machine and being an accomplished student is relatively easy. Girls are more concerned with other petty judgements (attractiveness, confidence, etc) that it is rare to find a young lady being teased for being smart by her female friends. Men are another story. The result is that when they try to party in their 20s which should be their prime (for the smart, solid men) they act like they are 16 and making up for lost time.
Thus, in a bar of young professionals we face a difficult choice: quiet and awkward or loud and wasted. While the choice may seem simple to many of you, there are still those of us who well, "just wanna have fun" and when we hear "Sweet Home Alabama" we want to be able to dance with someone who has the balanced social life that we maintain. The amount of smart, successful women I know who can throw back tequilla and sing kareoke with the best of them outnumbers the men I know with requisite accomplishments that will even take to the dance floor (or who can remain standing if they get there). Looking at women in high level degree programs, with competitve scholarships and good jobs, it is easy to see why there are so many all female tables at kareoke nights and happy hours: we wanna dance with somebody, so might as well be somebody who is like me. If I want to find someone that can debate Bush's Iraq policy and then sing Bon Jovi, I better stick the chicks. Because as is well known, even if you can talk the talk and walk the walk, if you can't dance you can't do nothing for me baby.
Just not into you lesson: It is hard to date someone who is not fun. Let's face it though, we have to. My ex was a wonderful guy but he would rather die than sing kareoke and thought the bar scene was the 11th plague. You can make these relationships work by hanging out with your girl friends or the rare guy who achieves this balance of smart/fun (although if you find him you might want to dump Sober Steve...there are a million of them to the well balanced male). It is hard though to face the realities of being raised in different worlds forcing sacrifices in either my social life or intellectual interest. Being picky has its issues too, but I think that a guy who can belt "ain't to proud to beg" is "born to be my baby"
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Maybe it's You
Recently I have had to re-learn certain truths. Growing up I was taught that honesty was the best policy, to respect strenghth of conviction and to speak my mind. Yet, the generation of women teaching me to be a strong, honest, bold individual were trying to compensate for previous generations' challenges for exihibiting any of these traits. The conserquence is a person who embodies these once well-respected ideals to the extent that they are no longer desirable qualities. While I venture on a, to this point, fruitless search to find a companion who can tolerate this newfound "flaw" it makes me wonder how much I need to give to get what I want.
While there is a value in honesty, strenghth and independence for young women of this generation it must be tempered. Of course, no one wants to hear they look like like a "lady of the evening" in thier knee high boots and spandex skirt, or that they seemingly gained ten pounds since last time you saw them. Obviously every situation demands a certain element of social conciousness and consideration for other's feelings. But what about other people's thoughts? This is where we strong, bold women fall into a difficult place. While jokes about topics like sex and a low cut top may be some of our idea of a night out, to others it represents a level of discomfort that challenges boundaries most people are not ready to break. The consequence is not the confrontation women like us want, it is a subtle gesture or whisper that forces us to remember that being bold bears the burden of subtle judgement.
If the challenge were how to deal with whispers and glances-- to each their own. Some of us appreciate forcing the person to embolden themselves and say it to our face, others of us laugh it off as an old-fashioned (non-fun) person-- but none of us can ignore it. Just when a night is getting fun, when the jokes are getting more frequent (as are typically the drinks...) we often find ourselves being inappropriate for being ourselves. While it is easy to laugh it off or call them out or even ignore it in the short term, the long term repercussions make me wonder if it is time to change-- or rather to return.
Another lesson I once learned is if it seems like it is everyone else, it is probably you. I wonder if I would be doing my daughter any favors in teaching her to not only value but embody honesty. I doubt I would be making her a desirable mate if I told her that she should always speak her mind and feel confident to be the person she wants to be and not the person everyone thinks she should be. My experience has shown me that despite my best efforts to view these aspects of my personaility as a strenghth, they are far from it. I think the more valued skill remains the ability to be well-behaved and reserved rather than bold and independent. I am living proof that when we overcompensate for the past we create a challenging future for those who embrace our lessons. Perhaps I will grow up and calm down. Perhaps there will be a time when I can join my male friends in a night of drinking and laughing to be respected as one of the group as opposed to one of the girls. Perhaps other people were learn to judge me on the basis of things I value rather than on the role I should be playing. Until then, I will be practicing apologizing, embracing the person I want to be requires offending people who see the person I should be.
Just Not That Into You Lesson: I obviously represent an extreme. Traits like honesty, individuality and boldness are valued in certain times and places. Unfortunately, some of us cannot be someone we are not even when it serves us to try. Some of us are just too consumed with who we are to ever see that other people are uncomfortable at best, offended in many cases and angry in others. It would be easy to raise someone to be more sensative to others, but often that is at the expense of honesty. It would be easy to teach someone to express their opinions, but it will cost them friendships and respect of those who disagree (in many cases). Perhaps we need to rethink what we value, or at least really think about whether it is worth going through life being made to feel guilty about being yourself.
Monday, April 7, 2008
One-upping the Spitzer Scandal
With a nearly unintelligible headline, Europe proves its supremacy on the powerful sex scandal.
Type rest of the post here
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Back At It
I apologize for the lack of posting in recent weeks. I have had things to say, but finals and spring breaks got the better of me. Now I'm back, and I want to talk about prostitution. Elliot Spitzer is a blatant hypocrite, an arrogant man, and a common example of what happens when power-hungry people get that which they crave. However, who's the real loser in this scenario? The call girl making $2500 an hour? Well probably, if we think about the long term consequences of selling your body in your twenties, but an argument can be made that people "sell" their bodies in many different ways. Cracking down on prostitution only further limits the options of those most degraded in society, the much more common "low class" prostitutes, making much much less than $2500 an hour. In the case of the high class hooker, if a woman armed with full information and full options still chooses to sell sex to the highest bidder in a situation that is safe, legal, and not likely to bring physical or emotional harm to either, is it then a victimless crime?
Sex workers and their counterparts in the pornography business present a quandary for feminists. On the one hand, if women are forced into prostitution because of their socioeconomic status then such work presents the ultimate debasement. In such a situation the best solution is to combat the social and economic conditions that force women into narrow choices and take away their agency and sexual power, placing it in the hands of violent pimps or johns. However, in the meantime, should women be punished for their activities as prostitutes, should the act of prostitution be criminalized? Sweden has come to the conclusion that selling sex is not a crime, but buying it is. Women aren't subject to prostitution, but their johns are. I think this makes a lot of sense, and the program has met with success.
In the end, I come down on the more second wavey- anti-prostitution side of things. Too few women have access to the idealized, legal scenario, and too many women might be tempted to opt for prostitution as a profession if it were glorified, legalized, and high-grossing. Factor in the huge problem of human trafficking, and we've got an even worse example of modern day slavery, serving the needs of rich, wealthy, white men like Spitzer. Let's keep prostitution illegal, but continue to crack down on the real problem: those who buy sex, those who sell other for sex, and the wider, institutionalized factors that force women into degraded situations in the first place.
Professional sex workers often identify themselves as feminists and assert their rights to their body in every capacity, even the capacity to sell it. This notion is deeply unsettling to the Western establishment.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Getting Lucky
Having the opportunity to celebrate St Patrick's Day in the Emerald Isle has brought new meaning to the "luck of the Irish." While St Patrick's Day is clearly about getting drunk and wearing green the combination of a flattering color (for those of us with lovely Irish coloring) and booze makes the bar scene an even more "profitable" one for those of us on the lookout for adorable men. The expectation of a whacky hat or T-shirt makes the weirdos a little more difficult to vet, as my friends and I were unfortunate enough to find out, but the increasing approachability made finding the pots of gold amidst the leprechans a litte more interesting. Yet, recent conversations with friends beg the question for everyday dating, "is it just about getting lucky?"
Now, I do not mean "getting lucky" in the same sense as the T-Shirts reading "The Luck of the Irish-- I can give it to you" or "I'm in Ireland and ready to get lucky" but in the sense that you are able to find a person in this crazy world that makes you happy. In the past year more of my friends have been dumped than found love and as some start to find love, that number is only increasing. While there is always the challenge of finding the right person, the harder challenge is knowing when hoping for luck slips into fantasy. I know many women who have believed that the best way to fix their broken relationships is to move in with their significant other or picking up and moving to the city where the love of their life is without any other direction because these women believe that not everything can be left to fate. That hoping and wishing on every charm in the world is not what you need-- it is action, purpose and drive. The problem is that while luck is not everything, neither is irrational commitment.
Of course there is push and pull in every relationship, but the push cannot be guided by a hope that it will be the last. The notion that this last move, phone call, email, friendship, will remind him what he is missing (or in some cases never saw) is a reaction to the randomness of some people's happiness. While I have friends who have successfully met incredible men by simply being in the right place at the right time, I have known more who have hoped that they could calculate the right place and time for reconciliation. The notion that a guy who has ignored you (even if he responds to your constant attempts at contact, that is still ignoring you-- guilt is a powerful drug ladies) will change his tune because you "take fate into your own hands" is in most cases as fanciful as psychic powers and voodoo.
While it is fine to hope that the next guy at the bar who kisses me because I'm Irish will be my one and only, counting on it and then moving in with him crosses a line. Being dumped, rejected or ignored by someone you truly love is difficult but putting yourself near them passed the point of outright rejection is only making it harder for you to give the other green haired beer drinkers a chance to impress. Remember that being lucky in love means that they love you back-- and if you want to find the right guy, stop forcing relationships with the ones who do not see what they are missing. So let yourself be a little into getting lucky, if only to keep you from getting hurt.
We're Just Not That Into You Lesson: Yes, you cannot sit in your bedroom and hope that Mr. Right finds you laying among your how to make men love you magazines and diet coke, but by the same token recognize when a relationship is not working. Be able to see that counting soley on luck is just as bad as obsessively taking matters into your own hands to the point you are moving in with someone, stalking someone or putting your own life's happiness in someone else's control. Leave a little room for luck and a lot of room for a reality check and you will be happy to see the green of envy in his eyes when you don't need him anymore.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
I am Woman, W-H-O-R-E
Meet Silda Wall Spitzer-- graduate of Harvard Law School and successful corporate attorney whose non-profit work has stretched from the NY Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth Leadership to the Children's Museum of Manhattan and most recently her founding of Children for Children, which is dedicated to the civic engagement and community involvement of youths. While her resume represents a successful individual, her reputation is now of a failed wife. Criticisms from the likes of Dr. Laura blame her lack of sexual attention for her husband's fall while others view her decision to stand by him through this embarrassing scandal as pathetic. Yet, the unspoken fear among successful women rests not in her actions, or lack of action-- but in her husband's infidelity. Is there a reason that men with successful spouses pursue sexual satisfaction with, well, less- qualified options?
We have all been called a whore and we have all played the whore. Women throw loaded terms like slut, whore, skank, etc. around for all types of reasons. Yet, when it comes to putting ourselves out there, women do accentuate our sexual traits rather than our intellectual accomplishments to attract men. We have all exuded sex, embraced our sexuality, and been proud of the results. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem lies in how successful we can be given that we are truly more complicated than that. After the attraction settles, our emotional and intellectual complexities taint our sexual front. It is troubling to see so many public men abandon their loyal, successful, complex wives for simple sex.
The word whore, while it might be used to describe your ex's new girlfriend or someone wearing a tube top in the snow, actually is a person who sells their body for sex. Simple sex. There are no emotional ties or complications in a relationship with a whore as part of the business agreement attached to the action. Now, those of us who are not employed by prostitution rings can also pursue simple sex, but at a point it has to end. Without a business agreement to prevent it, conversation and emotion make the relationship more substantive. We have been raised to believe that this is the ideal-- in fact the ideal is to have a significant connection emotionally and intellectually before the sexual relationship. Yet, when we look at the statistics of married couples who cheat (between 1 in 5 and 1 in 10 depending on who admits it) and those that stay together (as high as 7 in 10 of those when the man cheats) the reality of simple sex haunts those of us who pursue highly sophisticated intellectual relationships.
Of course there are many successful marriages and relationships where both parties are loyal, and it is in no way my intention to taint those relationships. I do, however, see a future for myself where I have to tolerate my husband's simple sex with someone else because it is a role that I can never play. While in theory I would love to profess I could never tolerate such behavior, but in reality I look at admirable, intelligent women who accept their role as wife as separate from providing sexual satisfaction.
Meet the Emperor's Club, a group of women who meet the needs of powerful men married to women like me. While I will never intimately understand the appeal of the whore, I know Hillary Rodham Clinton, Silda Wall Spitzer and others like them have learned that sometimes, we have to choose to either ignore or become them.
Just Not That Into You Lesson: I am not advocating becoming a prostitute, but rather that the role we adopt in the workplace of power and intellect often stifles the role we play in relationships. Making your partner feel satisfied both emotionally and physically by someone who produces some insecurity is a difficult balance. There are ways of finding men who yearn for this relationship-- the deep understanding and love to enhance the physical-- and we should focus on them, even if it means a turtleneck or a little more conversation and a little less action for a while.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Getting Into It?
Greg, you might be right. I hate saying this. I hate the message of "He's Just Not That Into You" enough that this entire blog is devoted to countering it. Until, well, I was (euphemistically) broken up with and I started to re-evaluate Greg's wisdom.
I have come to the conclusion that Greg is absolutely right that it is far, far better to be alone than to be with someone whom you're just not that into. Which, if you're honest, you're probably not if he exhibits any of the douchebag behavior Greg laments in the book. Ladies, if the first part of your day is a 30 to 60 minute bitch fest about the guy you're dating, trust me, you are not into him and he is probably not into you. If you've gotten to the point in any relationship where you're making up excuses not to sleep together, that's where you call it quits and perhaps invest in a rabbit.
Which leads me to my critique, I'll accept that it's better to be alone than together and miserable, but I still have trouble with Greg placing all the agency at the foot of men. Greg and Liz both present women as these desperate, lonely creatures starving for attention of any kind. I just don't believe that the same powerful, articulate women I see in the boardroom, on the dance floor, and in the front row of my classes are incapable of calling the shots in a relationship too. Do we all really just collapse in a puddle of tears beside the phone when he doesn't call? I think not.
Maybe I'm being unfair. The book is targeted to the demographic of women who self-select to buy and read a book entitled basically "Your boyfriend hates you." (and I would add the subtitle: "If you're honest, you probably hate him too.") And I think Greg is right on to tell anyone who's wondering whether it's okay if her boyfriend cheating on her since she gained 20 pounds that she needs lose 175 pounds of a douchebag boyfriend. I just don't think that the majority of women need this message. Not to be sanctimonious, but I certainly didn't. Although, perhaps you can't reminded enough not to ever ever take yourself for granted or be in an unhealthy relationship. I think that's a lesson worth waking up to every morning.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Sexism at the WaPo
Yesterday's vitriolic Washington Post piece upset me. Like the silly woman I am, I insist on getting caught up in my emotions when another woman wants to express her First Amendment views that all women are basically stupid, senseless, empty headed crybabies good only for keeping a nice house and taking care of men.
Thanks, Charlotte Allen, for keeping sexism alive. After all, it hardly counts as misogyny if another woman writes it, right? This self-hating mockery ran the gamut from the "harmless": noting that women frequently faint before Obama's thrilling oratory, to the, um, slightly more insidious assertion that scientific evidence proves men are smarter (and better drivers). On its merits as an op-ed piece alone, Allen's is woefully lacking. She starts out with unqualified assertions about fainting spells (ooh! Emotions=stupidity), moves on to the "no man I know would do xyz stupid female behavior," and ends with the assertion that women should just do what they do best, take care of others. I venture to guess she wouldn't include writing op-ed pieces as part of what women were made to do. Shame on you, Charlotte for touting forth your abilities while the rest of us silly headed gals paint our toenalis and braid each other's hair.
Finally, her tired examples of why exactly men are so much smarter than women fail to hold up to rational analysis. Even if she's correct and men are more biologically exceptional at analytic skills while women are exceptional at memory and verbal skills, this only points out a difference; her own bias creates the normative value. She relies upon the unstated assertion that the skills women do excel at are inferior to men's. It's less worthy to be an exceptional verbal communicator, writer, or memorizer of fact than a spatial reasoner? Back that up, Charlotte, and don't just tell me you're a girl and so you can't.
Falling into the vitriol myself, I think this article is bullshit and could only be published because it's written by a woman about women. No one would publish this if it made the same assertions about a racial minority group or about a disabled population or about gays and lesbians. Nor should they because it is wrong to make unqualified, untrue, hateful assertions about an entire group of people, even if you belong to said group. Well, I guess women will have to should onward closing the achievement gap with men and proving old bags like Charlotte wrong one career promotion at a time.
First comes love then comes dating
Dinner and a movie. A drink. Perhaps even something more adventerous like rock climbing or an early morning run. All of these things would constitute as dates, and I am sad to say I have never been on one. I met my ex-boyfriends at school or through social networks and we became friends, flirted, hooked up and then we were "together." In this popular method of finding a significant other, dating comes after the relationship. Women in their early twenties find themselves out of the vast social networks that come with college and into a working world with limited options in making a good friend into a boyfriend. Instead, we have to rely on the date. Finding someone we barely know and using one-on-one time to establish the comfort level that has been the foundation of past relationships.
On Sex and the City and other popular TV shows people meet random people in coffee shops, on the street, etc. and then they go on dates. Of my friends, I know about two girls this has ever happened to (both while living abroad). Now, after college, this is changing. Of my many friends who find themselves newly sigle, all are perplexed about where and how to find men. The notion of going out and simply asking one out, is not only foriegn but scary. Of course, in theory, many women are confortable with the idea of asking a guy out-- but a random one? On the street? This falls so far outside our comfort zone that we dismiss the idea and revert instead to online dating (at least we can email first) or fix-ups (vetted by a friend).
Yet, for those of us in our early twenties it is important to be able to look outside our group of male friends and into the pool of random men we come across everyday. Perhaps the idea of finding someone on the street, at the gym or in a bar needs to be given more thought. When one is no longer in school, clubs and surrounded my hoards of people your own age it doenst mean that all of the doors to dating are closed, but that instead of pursuing the men we know we should be pursuing the ones we do not.
We are not dating ourselves by dating. While modern hook-up culture seemingly does not lend itself to bonding over a cup of coffee, our past social networking methods are no longer always available. In a recent survey, men were much more attracted to women when they were told that the women were attracted to them. Our reluctance to get to know someone because we are attracted to them means seeing limited options when they are actually limitless. So next time you are walking down the street or working out at the gym stop the cute guy walking by and ask if he's free for a coffee or a drink-- at least if he says no you never have to see him again!
We're Just Not That Into You Lesson: Of course many women date, but it is a hard transition because younger generations no longer do. In high school and college no one goes on dates with people they are not already dating. It is important that if you want to put yourself out there, you are not afraid of getting to know people with an obvious romantic intention. Women are often made to feel desperate when pursuing men, but the truth is that not everyone we see is going to be into us immediately-- try to get to know as many people as you can and eventually the right one just might show up.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Hold the Olives, Please
Starving yourself to live? How about starving yourself to get a better high? Behaviors once relegated to the horrors of college excess are seeping into the mainstream and now there's a word for it: Drunkorexics. Women (usually) who either starve all day to offset the calories they drink or who use drinking as a means to relax them enough to be able to eat. I had read stories of mixing slim fast with tequila before going out at night, but I've never seen it in action. Quite frankly, my friends and I are much more likely to down our drinks with chicken wings and pizza, not diet drinks.
But I can relate to the anxiety of wanting to fit in socially while also worrying about the caloric cost. I've been known to assiduously eat whole grains and veggies for weeks and then down the liquid equivalent of two big macs over the course of an evening. (Hopefully the dancing that inevitably ensues burns off some of the Coors Lite.) But I don't mean to make light of yet another pernicious societal side effect of the beauty myth. Binge drinking for women has grown more socially acceptable in the past ten years. Coupling this trend with the alarming statistics on eating disorders and unhealthy body images has led to an entirely new class of disorder. Add to the mix rampant media images of our fave party girls doing coke and checking into rehab at the same rate the rest of us visit Ikea, and you've got a recipe for super skinny and drunk disaster.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
One Ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them...
One of the hottest statements my girlfriend has ever made was, "I don't want a[n engagement] ring... I want a around-the-world plane tickets." Ladies and Gentlemen, that's the definition of a keeper. I think this perspective is much more practical and romantic (yes, you can mix the two!). However, I have met many women who still need/desire a rock on their finger--and anything less would be grounds for dismissal.
My father never gave my mom an engagement ring; they were poor, recently immigrated grad school students. Besides, I'm not even sure the tradition of engagement rings even exists in Chinese culture. Flash forward thirty-odd years and my sister's fiance is taking out a loan so he can adhere to the 2-3 month's salary rule. Excuse me?! Some of us can buy a decent used car with that kind of money. Nevertheless, the poor sap is binding him (and his future spouse) into a loan because he doesn't have a lot of disposable income as an LD teacher. Meanwhile, my sister makes almost twice as much as he does. In fairness, she's about to undergo a significant pay cut during a career change and is also paying for a significant portion of the wedding. But my skepticism still stands: in a more equality driven society, does the traditional engagement ring have a place?
In some African cultures, gold jewelry was given to the woman upon marriage. The idea, some scholars assert, was that upon divorce or separation, the woman would have something of value. As someone trained to work with victims of domestic violence, this idea cannot be under-emphasized. Lack of economic means the top reason that abused women don't leave their husbands--they can't. In a traditional man-as-breadwinner marriage, I can see the necessity of an engagement ring.
Unfortunately, Western history isn't so generous; it seems our tradition is just another delusional game of "let's play rich" (ask me about my opinions of Vegas if you want to hear another example). Wikipedia, for what it's worth, claims in an un-cited statement that the standard of diamond engagement rings were spawn of De Beers' massive advertisement campaign. This article seems to agree.
It's easy for me, a skeptical capitalist and more importantly the cost-bearer of the ring, to dismiss diamond engagement rings. Even so, it's hard for me to accept that troves of enlightened and empowered women yearning for a rock. Seriously, it's just a fucking rock. The only thing that makes it any more valuable than that shit your kid buys for $5 a bag at the science store is because someone else says it is. In this age where both spouses working and splitting major costs like weddings, honeymoons and houses, why not demand something you can enjoy together is the norm, why not demand something both parties can enjoy together? And if it has to be material, why not get something that isn't going to be thrown into a safe deposit box after 3 months. 
Furthermore, I'll only take the "it's a symbol" point of view so far. Flowers, yes. Small jewelry, sure. $5000+? No. That's corporate America telling you to go fuck yourself. Why not just ask your man for cash? Chances are, your husband-to-be has given NO thought to the ring beyond that you want it and if he can afford it. Your girlfriend/sister/mom is at the mall without you for a reason...
Furthermore, what is it a symbol of? Personally, I think it's an artifact of a dirty dish called bride price. Maybe it's not paid to the parents, but how many women do you know would consider marrying a man if he didn't offer a ring? I find this disturbing because it implicitly places a price on a woman (or for other symbologists, on love). Why not invest in something that will bring memories and lasting enjoyment--something you can't put a price on, something unstereotypically romantic? Like a around-the-world tickets. Or a garden in that new house. Why a shiny rock, that if De Beers ever loses its majority control on the diamond supply, will be worth less than the band on which it's mounted?
I don't think that all men (or women!) should pop the question empty-handed, though I don't think a "gift" is necessary. Nor do I believe that we should have a new symbol that replaces the diamond engagement ring in all but form. Instead, I see marriage as a symbol radically different life spent together, so why not celebrate that shit...together!
In closing, I understand that for many females the diamond-desire is self-admittedly irrational, and despite all the practicalities and rationalities, they still want one. That's fine. Just don't get pissed when your husband comes home with a Ferrari in 20 years.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Crush
If you're lucky you have one. Girl or a guy, single or serially monogamous, hopefully there's someone who catches your eye and makes you think, "hmmm, what if...." The most depressed I've ever been in terms of my love life was when I lived in South Dakota, where I really felt (at times) like no possible romantic option existed. True, I wasn't settling, but no one seemed crushworthy to me then. Imagine my delight upon my arrival in Chicago.
It's not even the necessity of action, usually the best part of the crush is that you don't act on it. Especially if it's someone totally inappropriate in real life (like your boss, for instance, or the new freshman workstudy hire in your office). But just sensing the beginnings of reciprocated romanticism from across the room or in a casual encounter is really fun, or at least I think so. Crushes are all about the intangibility of signals. Deciphering whether him staring at you in class means something or whether he's really checking out the clock, or worse yet, the girl next to you, can take up many a pleasurable procrastinated minute. It's fun to have a prospect, sometimes even more fun than acting on said prospect.
I'm not going to go all Debbie Downer and tell my gentle readers that crushes are much better than reality because men in reality will always disappoint. That's probably true about any fictionalized love object who doesn't materialize to both cook you dinner and do your homework. Instead, I'll just advocate the crush itself, finding/creating one, not obsessing on one, but getting a bit caught up in the What If of one.
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Rules
Every woman knows "The Rules." Perhaps she has not memorized them or acted on them, but she knows what they are. "The Rules" are one of the most successful and controversial guides to dating. While most women who consider themselves, strong and independant laugh at the pathetic creatures who believe in such absolutes as "don't call him and rarely return his calls" or "don't stare at men or talk too much" because we all want to believe that men really want women who are smart, honest and most importantly: strong. Yet, on some level, we all know we have to play by "The Rules."
My frequent bar conversations with men reveal most of all my inability to play by the rules. I am patronizing to men I find unintelligent, dismissive to men I find cocky and most of all I won't give the ugly ones the time of day. On the rare occasion an abundance of alochol or lack of a date compels me to lower my standards, I have learned that to some extent "The Rules" are necessary. Last week a few guys were talking to my friends and I and asked what we were studying. My truthful response of "ethnic conflict" was met with awkward glances and the longest three seconds of silence imaginable until I was able to remedy the situation with a giggle. Apparently, "ethnic conflict" is too deep for bar conversation and now I simply respond that I study politics-- simple and non-threatening-- and maintain the giggle.
This strategy is not new. Having the opportunity to attend an elite university, I soon realized if I wanted to meet men outside of my own school I had to tell them I went to a school with a less rigourous academic reputation to avoid the silent seconds. While I would often speak with pride about my ex-boyfriend's academic accomplishments to my friends, I rarely hear my male friends discuss their girlfriends in the same way. It is not that all men do not want smart, substantive women-- many do-- but frankly, men are easily scared. We compete in a tough market. There are so many beautiful, accomplished single women competing for comparatively few men with requisite resumes and relationship values. There is a large cultural component to this: men want to settle down in their thirties, while more women in their twenties are looking for something more serious (dare I say, tick- tock). If you want to snag a man in the young twenty-something dating world you have to play it safe-- which often means playing dumb.
I am prepared to defend this against the inevitable slew of anecdotes from women who met a wonderful, caring, father of their children at a bar in Dupont Circle and she DID NOT have to be anyone but herself. My defense is that I do not know a single woman who can honestly say they have not toned down their accomplishments so as not to intimidate a man. Alternatively, I do not know a single woman who felt a man came off as too smart or accomplished for her. The dating scene requires caputuring his interest before his heart and unfortunately that includes playing up the physical and ditching the substance.
I want to end by being clear that this is not the way to have a substantive relationship. Of course if you meet someone and it is the real thing, they will get to know and love the real, intelligent, politically offense person that you are. Let's be honest though, ladies, we are not always looking for the father of our children-- and that cute guy shooting you a smile is more likely than not to give you the silent seconds if you can't muster up the giggle. Perhaps even today, for some occasions, "The Rules" were not made to be broken.
We're Just Not That Into You Lesson: Always be yourself. I write this and think about my past bar converstations that have not ended successfully, because I have done just that-- but still would not change a thing about my behaviour. I think it is important to point out these unfortunate double-standards but not important to live by them, rather to learn from them. You know what you want: if you just want to sleep with him, leave Hillary vs Obama for the office and bat those beautiful eyelashes, but if you want a guy whose worth your time-- buy him a drink and find out what the hell he thinks is wrong with Pakistan...
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Frenimies
For those of you who do not recognize this term-- shame on you! You have been ignoring a tabloid frenzy in the past couple of years involving such celebs as Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton as well as Mary Kate Olsen and Lindsay Lohan. Now, before you dismiss this because you are "above" celebrity gossip-- I assure you, if you are a woman you have a frenemy. "Frenemies" are friends that you secretly see as an enemy (ok, I know the term can also include friends you pretend are enemies, but if you knew that you are WAY too into Us Weekly!). We all have them-- and we know better than to let them fall out of our closest circles. Men and women differ in this way, when guys don't like someone they keep them at bay when women don't like someone, we make her our bridesmaid.
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" could be a sociological study on female relationships. For some reason women feel that subvert hatred is the only appropriate kind. I have been in endless conversations with friends about people they despise only to see them hug the same person with an elated greeting ten minutes later. Yet, this is not about being fake, it is about protecting ourselves because as much as it is hard to be an frenemy, being on the wrong side of the wrong girl is the worst thing you can be.
It surprises me that more women are not in politics because our relationships are so political. There are never fights between one girl and another. We always collect allies. We always make sure we reach out to mutual friends to ensure that our side is the one with the greatest support before we enter into a battle. The battle itself is about looking good while being bad. I remember my roommates and I had passive aggressive fights all year about one roommate's inability to clean up after herself. Notes on the kitchen door stating "If you use dishes, wash them!" or "The trash needs to be taken out!" attempted to alleviate the problem, but to no avail. Yet, they did secure an alliance of three clean roommates against the messy one which we fostered all year long. Yet when one of my male friends was angry with a roommate for his messy habits he wrote a note saying "Dude, clean up your F%$^ing mess." And it was over.
I cannot say which tactic is better, as women, in my opinion make both the worst enemies and the best friends. While we are more calculating and manipulative when it comes to people we hate we are devoted entirely to people we love. My friendships with women provide a closeness that no man could ever replace or even understand. Of course, many men have good friends, but women have strong emotional bonds to their friends, and frankly to other women. I was walking down the street in tears the other day and numerous women stopped me to make sure I was okay--strangers even offered to hear what was wrong. Perhaps there are men that do this, but none stopped me that day.
Therefore frenemies is perhaps the best term to describe female relationships. We are the best of friends and the worst of enemies. Our relationships with one another keep us standing and knock us down. I have never cried over a fight with lover like one at the prospect of losing a close friend. The emotional turmoil that comes with female relationships is complicated-- so thank god we have our girlfriends to talk to about it!
We're Just Not That Into You Lesson: Yet, confrontation is hard, but you have to do it sometimes. It is better to nip a problem in the bud then let it stew over time until there is the ultimate showdown between the warring groups. It is easier to say, CLEAN UP once than to say something softer ten times. Yet, by the same token, often being subtle is to protect our friends emotions and ensure lasting friendships even if they are not the closest-- and hey, we are all into that. So keep your friends close and your enemies-- well never let on who they are :) are :)
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
One Enchanted Evening (Or What the Snow Queen Pageant Taught Me About Life)
I should have known better. I'm no beauty queen. Beauty, sure. Queen, only on my good days. It was during high school. Perhaps I was drawn by the crown or out of boredom or curiosity. My motivations somewhat unknown, even to me, I stood before the crowd assembled in Sisseton, South Dakota's high school auditorium and sought the Snow Queen crown.
I'm reminded of my own sordid beauty pageant past by a recent clip in which a very confused Miss Teen South Carolina answers the question of the sages: "Why can't many U.S. citizens locate their own country on a map? Beautiful.
I'm tempted to write off the beauty pageant industry as obviously populated solely with vapid crown chasers, eating only cotton balls and using preparation H in the strangest places for optimal firmness. But, in a strangely out of character way, I've been there, and while I cannot comment on the tenacity of women who go for state or national crowns, I can offer some insight on why women still compete for the chance to be labeled "Prettiest" "Smartest" "Best in Show," when all indicators should lead us to believe we're already there.
Despite our ever-increasing achievements in school, the workplace, and even the hard sciences (thanks, Apollo), women remain trapped in what Naomi Wolfe has coined "the Beauty Myth." Miss Teen South Carolina notwithstanding, most women in pageants are strikingly smart and articulate; unfortunately, it's not enough to be the smartest without also being the prettiest. In a clever sleight of hand, the patriarchal limitations second wavers overturned have been subtlety replaced with massive pressures to feed the beauty industry. And feed we do, perhaps not ourselves, but certainly the behemoth of diet remedies, make up, hair dye, plastic surgery, $10,000 pageant gowns... the list goes on. We're buying it because women caught in the beauty myth are convinced that only a certain socially appropriate appearance will satisfy her lovers, her employers, her friends, but most of all, herself.
What did the Snow Queen Pageant teach me about life? At the very end, each participant was called off the stage and asked whom we thought should win, ourselves or our best friend. One by one, we went under the pressure of the regional selection committee, (A committee consisting of Kathy, our school nurse and Donna, the local beautician.) Only one young lady won the crown. She chose herself.
(P.S. It wasn't me, although I did win Miss Junior Princess Spring. That's right.)
Monday, February 18, 2008
If (subject == science) { Why do Females != Males?}
xkcd is pure brilliance--as in divinity in webcomic form--though sometimes slightly over the head of those who don't revel in the alternate reality of computer programming, math, physics and unrequited love. Today's episode is particularly sad and poignant. Before we grab our pitchforks, rest assured, the author of xkcd does not share these sickening stereotypes and is in full support of female nerdism (Pix Plz and The 1337 Series are but a few examples). Nevertheless, I saw the outlined scenario and its corollaries far too often as an electrical engineer/computer scientist, and frankly, it needs to stop now. Let it be known that the only generalization about my engineering classmates I ever made was that I was better/smarter than everyone else.
I've seen a variety of theories why there are relatively few women in the quantitative sciences ranging from probable to inherently stupid (such as "men are biologically wired towards logic and the quantitative, while women towards the emotional and qualitative"; just try to back that one up, bucko, we'll see how far you and your rationalized preconceptions get). Whatever the reason, the inherent discrimination and alienation that every mathy girl faces probably doesn't help.
Most women know this happens; for many men though, there's still this air of skeptical ignorance. I remember consoling my girlfriend for almost an hour after the typical arrogant computer science major openly snickered at her question in class. I've heard comments ranging from ignorant (bitterness towards recipients of scholarships targeting women) to appalling (like suggesting non-consensual sexual assault). Most of the time, I hear the hackneyed "Boys are naturally better at math than girls."
I don't mean to suggest that male scientists are malicious bigots; on the contrary, the majority of us are Mostly Harmless. That being said, most of us are instilled, whether by our parents or by our peers, with a natural tendency to stereotype females as inferior. This will continue until more women join our ranks, which isn't happening because of all the aforementioned biases.
This brings me to two paradoxes:
1) The number one complaint for male engineering students is "not enough females in classes." Yet, their behavior and beliefs are driving females toward more "acceptable" and socially rewarding studies, like the arts and humanities.
2) Clinging to the stereotype despite the average female outperforming the average male. If a female is kicking your ass in math and she has a natural handicap...you're pretty bad at math. Of course this point is completely anecdotal, but I'm reminded of a conversation with a notoriously arrogant professor who confided in me that there was only 1 other electrical engineer suited for graduate school in my class of 50. I only guessed two females. I was right on the second try.
Maybe I'm just as guilty; I looked at the women in my class with some degree of pity. They were top of their shit but I always wondered if they were naturally hard workers or if they did it just to prove their worthiness as female engineers. Whether they were or they weren't, it's sad that anyone feels that females have to prove anything simply because they're female in a male-dominated world.
I'm not sure if there are any strong lessons in this but these two come to mind:
1) If you have a female friend, relative, acquaintance, running partner, etc. and she's thinking of going into the hard sciences/engineering, encourage her to do what she wants. No one should do anything just to follow or fight a stereotype.
2) If you hear any guy purporting that females are worse at math/sciences than males, give him a swift knee to the testicles. Because yes, there are differences between males and females. And they should be exploited.
